Yes I said associations and extensions of the church and not the church itself. That means individual reps, schools, seminaries, universities, marriage celebrates who belong to churches, ect. I have already supplied those examples; you just plain ignore them and make up rationalizations why they don’t count.
I don't count them because they do not meet the other criteria you stated: "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."
So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case. He was denied his freedom of conscience by his own church. He had no recourse and was forced to resign from his job simply for expressing his belief in support of traditional marriage.
Episcopal bishop disciplined for opposing gay marriage says he plans to appeal Church-enforced punishment
By the way even you acknowledge that the above case comes close to support my claim. You claim it doesnt quite count because it wasnt an atheist who was doing the denying. This is irrelevant as the point is being forced to go along with SSM regardless of why was doing the forcing.
And I covered this already.
You can't claim the church is being forced to do something against its will when the church is the one that chose to do it.
I also never said it doesn't count because it wasn't an atheist doing the denying. My response to that claim, from
post 814, was:
He wasn't the one being forced to perform the marriage though, was he? Seems like the problem here was that he was saying, "I don't want to have to perform same sex weddings, and I don't want anyone else to either." It seems like it's a case of no one is saying he has top perform them, but he isn't allowed to stop others from doing them.
No when I say may not be happening in the Church I mean the Church itself. But entities associated with the church could mean a number of examples that I listed plus others I didnt list. Basically any religious person or entity that is associated with a church and who is being denied their rights. I have supplied ample examples of this.
No you have not.
You claimed that churches were being forced to perform same sex marriages when they did not want to. You have NEVER produced even a single example of this.
Instead, you've twisted your original claim into being about how people are getting called out for speaking against same sex marriage. Does this happen? Of course it does. But that's not what we were talking about, was it? You've moved the goalposts in an effort to make it seem like your claim was that people are being criticised for being against SSM because you know that your original claim that churches and churched owned venues were being forced to participate in same sex marriages.
Now, stop trying to change the subject and actually address the issue.
I never said that. I said that the new laws have caused people to be attacked and in some cases sacked, hounded from their positions on boards, threatened for simply proclaiming their support for traditional marriage (TM) between a man and a woman.
Once again you are attempting to move the goalposts.
In
post 833, you said: "But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal."
You clearly state that the laws are making traditional marriage illegal.
And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.
I never said that. I said as a result of the marriage law change which is now classified as between 2 people so that gays can be included this now means that promoting TM which is between opposite sex is in conflict with that law. Therefore people are being attacked as a result of expressing their view for this as they say it harms gays. As a result peoples lives are destroyed when they suffered the consequences of those attacks such as being sacked, losing income or reputation.
Ah, so people are having their lives destroyed because they speak an opinion that a lot of other people don't like, and they suffer the consequences of it?
You do realise that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, right?
And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.
Your missing the point. Why was he hauled before the courts in the first place for simply expressing a view about TM. The damage was already done and his life was destroyed. Thats why he got such a large pay out. The point is even when people are found not guilty its the fact that they were denied the right to express their view without duress and that damage caused that is the wrong which you are completely overlooking. The Fire Chief was denied his rights to freedom of speech and thats why he was awarded damages.
You can't claim that people are being denied the right to express their views about marriage just because there are other people who think those views are harmful.
If it were Christians who were saying that marriage equality was harmful, and the gay people went to court to ensure that their right to express their views was recognised, would you be making this much of a fuss? Somehow I doubt it.
No we are not. I am responding to your claim that no one is being denied freed speech in expressing their views about TM and that is why I posted those examples if you go back and chech post
#833. So it is you who is moving the goal posts.
No, you are wrong. We are most certainly talking about your claim that churches and church owned buildings are being forced to hold same sex marriages. You made the claim in
post 794 that "we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."
You made the claim, and I asked you to support it. Since then you have not provided a single example. Stop trying to move the goalposts and answer the question.
You say this example is not about being denied to hold a viewpoint and then acknowledge it’s about being denied holding a viewpoint.
Having to face the consequences of what you say is not the same thing as not being allowed to say it.
Even the quote above from the article states it’s about holding a viewpoint. In this case the viewpoint about TM. They lost their charitable status for promoting the view of traditional marriage because the arbitrator thought that taking that view denied same sex couples. This is exactly what I have been saying and you have been denying IE
“The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ
So the many charities Like the Salvo, Catholic care, religious adoption agencies and other religious associations that promote TM would no longer be regarded as charities according to the above article simply for expressing their view about TM. By promoting their view of TM they are being hateful because they are not being inclusive according to this logic. This is exactly what I have claimed.
Irrelevant. This has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.
Once again these examples are in response to your claim that no on is being denied the right to express their view about TM. I can see you have misunderstood or missed the what we were talking about. Its a pity as I have gone to the effort of replying. So you need to address my response to your claim. The adoption agencies is a good example of being denied the right as a charity to express their view about traditional marriage. Many religious adoption agencies have had to close down as a result.
I'd be happy to move on to having a discussion about how people are not being denied their right to hold certain views about SSM. Does that mean you are abandoning your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform SSM against their will?
But the example isn’t about that. It’s the opposite. The church was being threatened to be blown up for creating a bill board expressing their support for TM. The point was about freedom of speech and that example is a clear denial of freedom of speech.
No it isn't. No one was denying them the right to express their opinion. But the freedom of speech that gives the church the right to express their opinion also gives other people the right to say they find the church's opinion a lousy one.
No it’s exactly on point we wee talking about and I was responding to about your claim that no one is being the right to express their views about TM. It’s just that you totally missed it. So the whoosh is actually the point flying over your head. Lol.
Once again, I'd be happy to move on to having a discussion about how people are not being denied their right to hold certain views about SSM if you are abandoning your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform SSM against their will.
The point is about freedom of speech. Why was he hauled up before the tribunal in the first place and put through suffering. Despite the accusation being withdrawn the damage was done and it is still a wrong against people being able to express their views on TM without any duress or consequences. They were still denied freedom of speech which is about being able to express a view without being taken to court at all regardles of the outcome.
See? This is how you try to move the goalposts. You claim that churches and all that are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will, and I ask you to support that.
Then you move the goalposts so you can pretend the conversation was always about people copping flack for expressing views about SSM that other people don't like.
Then you claim that you aren't moving the goalposts, and you accuse me of moving the goalposts when I try to get you back onto the original topic we were discussing.
Your efforts to derail the conversation are very clear for all to see.